Civility In Twelve Angry Men

Juror Eight’s passionate opinion about the defendant’s innocence helps persuade the other jurors to change their view on the matter. The defendant faces the death penalty if the jury votes him guilty for the first degree murder of his father. Immediately after the first half of the trial the jury converges in the conference room and takes their first vote. The main protagonist, Juror Eight, becomes clear when the results of the first vote are told to be eleven to one in favor of guilty. Juror Eight states, “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose 231). Juror Eight feels that fairness is essential in a trial with the death penalty on the line. The conviction of a person doesn’t depend on where they come from. In the beginning of act two in Twelve Angry Men, a second vote amongst the jury members who voted guilty the first time takes place. Juror Nine votes not guilty because he admires Juror Eight for standing alone against the majority. Once the jurors start to discuss the case again Juror Seven questions who else would have the motive to kill this boy’s father. Juror Eight rebuts by saying, “As far as I know, we’re supposed to decide whether or not the boy on trial is guilty. We’re not concerned with anyone else’s motives here” (Rose 240). The main priority is to discuss the defendant’s innocence or guilt. By keeping the subject of discussion on the boy, Juror Eight, has an easier time convincing the rest of the jury that he is not guilty of the murder of his father. Juror Three, the main antagonist of Twelve Angry Men, doesn’t possess the perseverance that Juror Eight does. Juror Three doesn’t have a reasonable cause, which in turn weakens his argument. His bottled up emotions over his son become a problem later in the play when

People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race. His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors. Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing. He says the defendant accused of murder was let off and “eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway” (12). Prejudice clouds a person’s judgement and does not allow the individual to see all the facts. It only allows them to

After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion. What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.

What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice.

The Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing? The film is all about this issue, and the question remains until the end of the play.

The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty. Without this, the boy would have been given an unfair trial, and possibly had been prosecuted wrongly for a crime he didn’t do. The play wouldn’t have been able to continue without this, because the jurors would simply convict him as guilty and the boy would be put in jail. This play is a perfect example of how standing up to the majority is prevalent and

It is a natural human instinct to want to be acknowledge by your peers, yet it is also important to be a critical thinker. Irving Janis in 1972 created the term groupthink. He believed groupthink occurs inside a group of similar people that want to keep from being different, resulting in incoherent decision-making. The 1957 film "12 Angry Men," uses groupthink, which influenced the verdict vote in the case of a teenager accused of murdering his father. The purpose of this essay is to examine groupthink and to represent Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film.

One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death. The movie begins in the humid jury room by taking a vote to see whether or not the boy is guilty: eleven guilties and one not guilty. At this point Mr. Davis (the only not guilty vote) could have easily switched his vote and sentenced the boy to death, however he did not. This is where some men get aggravated. This film shows the many ways the men try to persuade one another to change their vote through the characters of Mr. Davis (Juror 8), Juror 4, and Mr. McCardle (Juror 9).

In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror. This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background.

Usually others opinions cause the justice system to be worse than it has to be. A danger of relying on twelve individuals in a court system means that there are some that would be biased about the case. Juror 5 was biased for relating this case to himself because he was from the slums and so was the boy on trial. “The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (Rose 318). Juror 3 was being biased in the play because his son hit or abused him like how the boy is being tried for stabbing or abusing his father. “When he was fifteen he hit me in the face” (Rose 317). Other times in real life that people could be biased is they have

Our life experiences make our present, our values, our way of behaving and thinking. Although no one is perfect, we are prone to develop prejudice against those who are totally different from us.

A juror that was very vulnerable to the pressure was Juror 2. He lacks diction, and seems weak in his beliefs. When the men are asked to share their opinions he says, “Well, it’s hard to put into words. I just-think he’s guilty” (Rose 14). Contrary to the second juror, the third jurors resents being pressured by his peers. While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system. He seems in a way relatable to William Golding’s character, Simon, in The Lord of The Flies. Simon is seen as a sort of christ like figure, and while Juror 8 isn't anywhere near that level, he does seem to portray a sort of thoughtfulness and compassion that Simon does as well. All of the jurors are affected by peer pressure in different ways, and how they are effected is important to the

Throughout the play 12 Angry Men, jurors use reasonable doubt; previous knowledge or opinion of a topic, to influence the opinions of other jurors. Personal insight used by Juror eight, juror 9, Juror 5, Juror 8, and Juror 2 influence other jurors by changing their opinions and their reasoning behind that vote.

Within society, people are motivated by self interest and self gain rather than concern for other members of the society. In moments of high crisis On the Waterfront directed by Elia Kazan and Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose both depict characters driven by self interest rather than compassion. However On the Waterfront and Twelve Angry Men both have a character that defies the social norms of self Interest. The play script and film portray similar themes through different devices. The characters within the film and novel cast a similar picture of greed and corruption. On the Waterfront and Twelve Angry Men are a piece of history where the society is seeking justice.

Juror #3 mixed his personal conflicts with his son running away from home to the young man accused of hurting his father. His assumption was that young men who don't get along with their fathers might go as far as to kill him. Which is a very informal practice in a small group setting. Another incident of a informal role is to not provide the evidence first hand how can a room full of jurors decide the fate of somebody when they don't have precise evidence to incriminate him. Other jurors based the fact that the accused lived in a slum and that slum residents are delinquents by nature. The results of these informal practices only proved that the accused wasn't guilty because the arguments were not valid enough to incriminate him. Leadership did emerge differently from a small group setting because a designated leader should not let a group member overtake his position. So Juror #8 as a initiator should have never tried to take the position of Juror #1. But it was needed for him to do that so that the group could reach into a correct decision. If Juror #8 wouldn't have voiced his opinion then maybe this innocent young men could have been acquitted. A group needs to be a stable and positive environment in order to